Left turns out to support someone like Kuchinich or Sanders and they get called unreasonable children by the establishment or crazy cultists for their guy even though they're heavily supportive because these politicians are supporting what their base has believed in their entire political lives.

But propping up some boring establishment candidate with a lot of baggage like Clinton is called the "reasonable" route despite all evidence to the contrary.

Yeah, there's no hero worship within the party. Pfft. And you wonder why you lose elections. Democrats literally live in their little bubble with no connection to the rest of the country and think pointing out that the opposition "says mean things" is enough to win all the while being woefully ignorant as to how the working class is confused by the mixture of their pro-worker stances and massive corporate contributions.

The Nation pegged all of this back in 2013, so the writing was indeed on the wall.

I mean, fuck, we're on the same page here. Just let us have a say for once especially since we're the actual future of the party. You've lost us three elections this century by choosing a big party name. It's time the far left had their say, win or lose. Millions like me will gladly hop on board for once.

Disagree entirely. Just learn how to use them responsibly. Plenty were accurate between the primaries and the election.

To suggest "current polls" are any different than older polls is wrong. The polls made this a possibility. The way they were perceived and reported... that's where people were wrong.

There's no way you can tell me polling has stayed the same. You're trying to tell me that polling in the days of landlines and pre caller id is the same as today? There are entire demographics now that are likely not to even take a poll. Pollsters don't even have access to me.

Where was the accurate polling in these swing states? And why weren't you predicting a Trump win if they were accurate?

Yeah because the fact that she's a Clinton and former first lady had nothing to do with her Senate primary (and general) victory and her ascendancy within the party. Seriously, use your critical thinking skills and quit trying to just declare people as racists and sexists because it makes you feel good. That's how you lost the election.

What political track record did she have aside from being the First Lady before she ran for the Senate? Virtually none. She'd be an unknown and have had absolutely no prayer of winning a Senate primary. Meanwhile, the fact that she was previously a First Lady was exactly why Obama gave her the Secretary position because she had a ton of experience meeting foreign leaders. Otherwise, she's just some one term Senator without any major accomplishments, be they stances or legislation. And one who had just used absolutely disgusting tactics such as race-baiting photographs, trying to use the vote totals from disqualified state primaries and even making a veiled reference to calling for Obama's assassination by comparing him to Kennedy in 1968.

There's no way you can tell me polling has stayed the same. You're trying to tell me that polling in the days of landlines and pre caller id is the same as today? There are entire demographics now that are likely not to even take a poll. Pollsters don't even have access to me.

Where was the accurate polling in these swing states? And why weren't you predicting a Trump win if they were accurate?

Well, polling did show a close race in Michigan, for example, although like Wisconsin it was hardly polled because it was considered a Clinton slam dunk. Then there were plenty of Pennsylvania polls showing a close race that were dismissed as outliers.

But there still was no reason for anybody to predict a Trump victory. A 1-in-3 chance is still pretty good for him and way better than recent Republican nominees, but the mountain of evidence was in her favor. But people putting their hands over their ears and ignoring Trump having a 30% chance on FiveThirtyEight was rather comical. He honestly didn't need much work nationally to make states like Michigan fall into his corner. The path was there and blatantly obvious by the end of this...the second the Michigan results came in at first on CNN, I knew it was over and went for a walk to clear my head.

Again, hubris on the Clinton campaign to not even open offices in Wisconsin, etc.

Yeah because the fact that she's a Clinton and former first lady had nothing to do with her Senate primary (and general) victory and her ascendancy within the party. Seriously, use your critical thinking skills and quit trying to just declare people as racists and sexists because it makes you feel good. That's how you lost the election.

What political track record did she have aside from being the First Lady before she ran for the Senate? Virtually none. She'd be an unknown and have had absolutely no prayer of winning a Senate primary.

Blacks in America are more likely to commit crimes. Yes. And your point is?

Again, twisting actual facts said by anyone to try and make them sound racist or sexist or whatever else. Why not just have an actual discussion without resorting to name calling such as referring to Bernie as "a cunt" and the like?

You chose a terrible candidate and propped her up like she was a great one. You own this loss. It's on you. Stay home next time in the primaries or finally get with the left. I know that tax increase will hurt your checkbook, but hey, it probably won't happen anyway thanks to Republican obstructionism.

It also amazes me that someone can spend a year trashing a candidate, present her in the worst possible light, attempt to delegitimize the primaries, and the turn around, not even vote for her, and then say that the problem is that she's unlikeable (gee, wonder why?) and then blame her supporters -- with particular vitriol for black Americans, when his own demographic (the"youngs") failed to show up as they ALWAYS do whenever BHO isn't on the ticket -- for losing an election that she actually won by a significant margin in the popular vote and crying "now I have to live under Trump, thanks to you."

A better candidate would have won and the establishment and the party faithful that voted for her by an overwhelming margin in the primaries are to blame for this loss. How hard is that to understand?

My problem with black America is that they merely wanted an extension of the Obama Presidency. They saw Clinton as his third term and we all know he wanted her to be the nominee, so that's the result we end up with. I'm really not bitter about it, just demonstrating that it really wasn't about the issues for that group just as I suspect they will slide over to Cory Booker's column immediately when the next election rolls around (just as many of you will because the establishment tells you too). It's called identity politics and those of us on the far left are having a frank discussion about it at the moment.

The youngs dropped off in 2012 for BHO because you know he didn't like close Gitmo on day one, and you know like didn't not like stand up to Wall Street.

The real world sucks for youngsters. Once they get out of their college bubble they realize it's not black and white anymore. Sometimes you have to compromise and hold your nose as you do something you don't want to do.

Or you don't turn out because like your integrity is more important than millions of lives